>There is a third possibility: the wearer was wearing "clothes" with >no spiritual significance. I find it interesting that there was no >head, nor other paws present, hence not a _complete_ hide. Since I >haven't been around many shamans (shamen?, sha-persons?), I don't >know what is the costume du jour but I have seen people wearing >animal robes, including paws (and even an occasional head) for non->religious reasons (except, maybe, the religion of affluence). As a >result, I am not convinced the find represents a shaman or any >religious artifact. All I see you have is a person (probably) >wearing an animal skin - their motivation is purely speculation.

This is a good point. But let me point out that clothing itself, according to
the Bible, has a religious/spiritual significance. It is a fact of the Fall
that the Bible says we wear clothing. The fact that there was clothing at all
says bucket-loads about the spiritual nature of the individual!

Do you know of any animal that makes clothing from skins?

If you are willing to say that the manufacture of clothing (the evidence for
which goes back about 1.5 million years) has nothing to do with the Fall then
perhaps you are correct that there is no spiritual significance.